Easy General Knowledge #2

The stats would suggest the William the Conqueror question is the most out of place...Elton John is currently sitting at 83%, compared to Mars' 82% or William the Conqueror's 80%.

I'm amazed William the Conqueror is the least known question. Isn't 1066 a date everyone gets taught in school, or is that just the case in Britain?

I'd be amazed if everyone got taught about him.

Pelandreth.. definitly not taught in the USA, or atleast where I've lived. (East coast)

I've even seen American cartoons where the children learn about the Norman invasion.

I learned about 1066 and I don't live in the UK.

Only missed William the Conqueror indeed.. Knew the date, but couldn't think of the name.

I'm from England and was never taught about 1066 lol

I'm French and typed in Guillaume, but it didn't accept it

Pelandreth: do English schools teach the date the Moors invaded Spain, the Mongols invaded India or the Turks invaded Serbia? The Norman conquest of England is not that relevant in the world scale, and it certainly doesn't merit to be taught abroad.

Can you take Ares as an alternate for Mars?

It specifically asks for the Roman god of war. Ares is Greek.

It is absolutely taught in U.S. schools more than once in the 13 years kids are there. Whether they remember an 11th Century English history date even long enough for a test is another matter.

@rocamorar Schools do teach the dates the Moors invaded Spain, the Mongols invaded India and the Turks invaded Serbia? The Norman conquest of England is relevant in the Western world scale, and it certainly does merit to be taught abroad.

From Germany, they didn't teach us 1066. The Moorish invasion of Spain is at least as relevant as the Norman conquest, no? Destruction of the Visigoth Kingdom, introduction of many technologies, scientific discoveries, crops, and words, to Europe. The crux is that there isn't a single date for it.

Well I live in hastings where the 1066 battle happened so it is taught in all the school

American here who was definitely taught about the Battle of Hastings in school, along with the date of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and the date of the signing of the Magna Carta. I can't imagine anyone thinking those dates are unimportant just because they are part of English history. (That was in the 1960s. I have no idea what they are or aren't teaching now except I know they are teaching a form of math that I can't even help my second-grade grandchild do when she has problems with her home work.)

the Elton john question caught me off guard a bit but 'Rocket Man' made me get it!

Generally I think most very important historical facts are mostly important in the countries they took place in, and it is hard to assume any event is taught everywhere. We were not told anything about William the Conqueror (or the American civil war for that matter) in my Danish school, and I do not think that is a big deal

I'm 20, American. I was also taught the dates of the Norman conquest and the signing of the Magna Carta in high school. I only remembered the date for the Norman invasion but I do remember what generally happened with the Magna Carta. I was definitely not taught the dates of the Moorish conquest of Iberia, the Mongol invasion of India, or the Ottoman invasion of Serbia. The date for the first at least was probably mentioned in the textbook, but to the same extent that every date is mentioned in the textbook; we weren't expected to know it. We learned about the Ottomans in the Balkans generally but nothing Serbia-specific, and we learned about the Mongols generally but not really about their invasion of India. I do think at my school British history was slightly inflated, but as the successor to a British settler-colony I think that makes sense. I do agree that on the global stage the Norman invasion at least shouldn't be a big priority. Magna Carta is super important, though.

When what? When what? Argh, the mistery is killing me!

The Volga valley or Ural mountains were the original location of the Uralic peoples. The Finns and Estonians (probably indistinguishable back then) migrated to their current location more than 5000 years ago.

This is the creation myth for those countries. There is a similar one for Hungary. Languages did work like this, but "peoples" is really not a thing. I can almost guarantee that the people who now call themselves "Finns" won't have more ancestors who came from the Ural Mountains than any other Eastern Europeans. They just happen to speak a similar language. The fact that people identify with groups of people who lived more than 5000 years ago (according to Sulps) is completely illogical and actually quite dangerous, as it leads to jingoism, nationalist separatism and racism. If someone lived 5000 years ago, they are either an ancestor of everyone who is alive today, or no one who is alive today. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but it isn't a very big one. The odds of any individual from 5000 years ago being either the ancestor of both of two given people alive today, or the ancestor of neither, are overwhelmingly high.

i don't think so at this point

It took 3 years? Wow that is longer than some marriages last

For some reason I thought they were already married before 2014 but I guess they were just dating.

Wow, so their divorce was longer than their marriage? That's bonkers.

I agree. "Nordic" is the term to use when discussing all five countries. I was ignorant of all these distinctions until I traveled through the region last summer. Every time it came up, it was noted that Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are the Scandinavian countries because of their close linguistic and ethnic relations. The Scandinavian Peninsula itself includes only Sweden and Norway, but Danes are considered Scandinavian as well.

agreed, i'm from belgium